When I first got my NSX, I thought I was going to have to buy new tires. The Goodyear F1 GS-D3 tires are a perennial favorite for Prime members, but I was intrigued about Yokohama’s new S.Drive line as well. Using the data provided from Tire Rack’s tests, I decided to compare the two lines to determine what tire is best for me. The first thing to do when deciding to buy any tire is to determine what the driving conditions will be. For me, my NSX likely will only see 1-5 track days per year. The rest will be done on the local roads of Long Island and on the highways to NSX events. I’d love to hit the track more, but working 65 hours a week just doesn’t leave much room for track time. 
Moreover, Long Island is prone to sudden and often severe rain storms during the summer, and the decrepit infrastructure means that the roads often cannot drain water quickly enough to keep up. Thus, hydroplaning conditions abound.
With this in mind, I know that my NSX needs tires with good road manners in terms of noise and wear, excellent wet performance and which are competent/safe (but not dominant) on the track. Incidentally, thanks to CarCrazed4Life, I ended up with nearly new AVS ES100 rubber, so the comparison ultimately was not needed. But, in order to help others with their decision, it is below. I did learn that just because a tire company puts a product in a certain category at a certain price point does not necessarily mean that other tires at other price points will be worse performers.
THE TEST
Slalom (Dry)
S.Drive 4.12 sec
F1 GS-D3 4.18 sec
Slalom (Wet)
S.Drive 4.44 sec
F1 GS-D3 4.49 sec
I was a bit surprised at these results, considering the price and marketing position of the Goodyears. In the dry, the Yokohama was 0.06 seconds, or 1.5%, faster than the Goodyears. The wet run was virtually identical, yielding a 0.05 second advantage for the S.Drive.
Next were the lap times on TireRack’s dedicated test track. This more than anything is the best measure of a tire’s overall performance characteristics because it puts the tire through the entire range of driving conditions in real time and all at once. Given the unexpected slalom results, I was quite curious.
Test Lap (Dry)
S.Drive 29.98 sec
F1 GS-D3 30.24 sec
Test Lap (Wet)
S.Drive 31.46 sec
F1 GS-D3 31.96 sec
Once again, the cheaper S.Drive is faster than the Goodyear. In the dry, the Yokohamas edged it out by 0.26 seconds, or 0.9%. But the wet times are even more telling. There, the S.Drive was a full half second faster than the F1 GS-D3, or 1.6%. This may not sound like much, but consider this. Extrapolating this data to a hypothetical wet road course with an average lap time of 2 minutes on the S.Drive, the same car with the Goodyears would cross the finish line almost 2 seconds later. The S.Drive’s dry lap time is astounding, considering that Yokohama’s flagship super tire, the Advan Neova AD07, lapped the same course in 29.64 seconds, just 1.1% faster than the S.Drive.
At this point, I was quite perplexed. Why on earth was Goodyear charging so much for these tires? Next up was braking.
Brake Distance 50-0 mph (Dry)
S.Drive 86.3 ft
F1 GS-D3 80.0 ft
Brake Distance 50-0 mph (Wet)
S.Drive 98.4 ft
F1 GS-D3 98.6 ft
Finally, some more reasonable results…sort of. In the dry, the Goodyears are clearly superior, stopping over 6 feet shorter than the Yokohamas, or 7.8%, which is the largest margin of all the tests. But, the wet track appears once again to nullify the F1’s edge. There, the performance margin between the two tires is a miniscule 0.2%, with the S.Drive actually stopping shorter than the Goodyear!
The final comparison was average lateral G on the skidpad. This is a great test for validating the other tests because it measures a tire’s maximum lateral grip in a fairly closed setting.
Corner G (Dry)
S.Drive 0.96 G
F1 GS-D3 0.94 G
Corner G (Wet)
S.Drive 0.86 G
F1 GS-D3 0.86 G
Looking at the above numbers, we can see why the S.Drive did so well in the other tests – it has more available dry grip than the Goodyear. The wet grip between the two is identical, though given the other results I expected to see a higher number for the S.Drive.
Taking these relatively objective results into account, it is important to compare them to the subjective ratings of the drivers who use them. Thankfully, Tire Rack provides user surveys to this end. I primarily was concerned with three data points – dry traction, wet traction and tread life:
S.Drive (~250,000 miles tested)
Dry Traction 8.8
Wet Traction 8.4
Treadwear 8.6
F1 GS-D3 (~21,000,000 miles tested)
Dry Traction 9.2
Wet Traction 9.1
Treadwear 7.6
According to the collective “butt dynos” of drivers, the Goodyears clearly have an advantage, though the Yokohamas appear to last longer. The problem with these subjective ratings to keep in mind however is that there are so many variables that it is difficult to determine how the numbers were derived. After all, each driver’s perception is different. What feels grippy to one may feel unstable to another. Also, the type of car used can have an enormous impact. After all, the opinions of minivan drivers commuting to and from the office are combined with those driving Ferraris on dedicated race courses. Deriving any meaningful information under such circumstances is difficult.
By contrast, through using the same car on the same track under identical conditions, TireRack’s tests provide what is in my opinion a more solid basis for comparison. Still, there are some caveats even with these tests. First, while the test car is always a BMW 3 series, the model year does change. Here, the Goodyears were tested on a 2006 and the Yokohamas on a 2008. Thus, improvements to the vehicle’s handling characteristics/available power could account for some of the discrepancies.
Second, we don’t know if they use the same driver for every test. Driver skill varies, so lap times even with the same vehicle can differ between drivers. Finally, these tests do not cover the tire over its life cycle. Basically, all they tell you is the performance of the tire in brand new condition. The results could be totally different after 10,000 miles or half a day at the track. Perhaps it is here that the premium-priced products like the F1 GS-D3 really justify their extra cost, though we’ll never know for sure. It would be interesting if TireRack ran a follow-up test at the 10,000 mile mark.
Finally, it is also possible that the Goodyears are simply older technology. They have been around since at least 2003 and the performance discrepancies may simply be the result of 5 extra years of development on the part of Yokohama. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the Goodyear F1 Asymmetric, which is Goodyear’s newest max performance design, beats the S.Drive in every category.
Conclusions
Based on my research and based on my anticipated needs, I will go with the Yokohama S.Drive for my next set of tires. The S.Drive equals or beats the Goodyear in every objective category except dry braking, and does so at nearly a 25% price discount. Incidentally, after having my AVS ES100 (the S.Drive predecessor) for a few months, I can say they are pretty good. I got caught in a monsoon rain storm once and the tires felt confident and in control, even at highway speeds. Dry grip is good and the tires are very linear in response and communicative. My only complaint is road noise, which I think comes mostly from the aggressive uni-directional tread. If the S.Drives are an update to the ES100, it bodes well I think.
Moreover, Long Island is prone to sudden and often severe rain storms during the summer, and the decrepit infrastructure means that the roads often cannot drain water quickly enough to keep up. Thus, hydroplaning conditions abound.With this in mind, I know that my NSX needs tires with good road manners in terms of noise and wear, excellent wet performance and which are competent/safe (but not dominant) on the track. Incidentally, thanks to CarCrazed4Life, I ended up with nearly new AVS ES100 rubber, so the comparison ultimately was not needed. But, in order to help others with their decision, it is below. I did learn that just because a tire company puts a product in a certain category at a certain price point does not necessarily mean that other tires at other price points will be worse performers.
THE TEST
Slalom (Dry)
S.Drive 4.12 sec
F1 GS-D3 4.18 sec
Slalom (Wet)
S.Drive 4.44 sec
F1 GS-D3 4.49 sec
I was a bit surprised at these results, considering the price and marketing position of the Goodyears. In the dry, the Yokohama was 0.06 seconds, or 1.5%, faster than the Goodyears. The wet run was virtually identical, yielding a 0.05 second advantage for the S.Drive.
Next were the lap times on TireRack’s dedicated test track. This more than anything is the best measure of a tire’s overall performance characteristics because it puts the tire through the entire range of driving conditions in real time and all at once. Given the unexpected slalom results, I was quite curious.
Test Lap (Dry)
S.Drive 29.98 sec
F1 GS-D3 30.24 sec
Test Lap (Wet)
S.Drive 31.46 sec
F1 GS-D3 31.96 sec
Once again, the cheaper S.Drive is faster than the Goodyear. In the dry, the Yokohamas edged it out by 0.26 seconds, or 0.9%. But the wet times are even more telling. There, the S.Drive was a full half second faster than the F1 GS-D3, or 1.6%. This may not sound like much, but consider this. Extrapolating this data to a hypothetical wet road course with an average lap time of 2 minutes on the S.Drive, the same car with the Goodyears would cross the finish line almost 2 seconds later. The S.Drive’s dry lap time is astounding, considering that Yokohama’s flagship super tire, the Advan Neova AD07, lapped the same course in 29.64 seconds, just 1.1% faster than the S.Drive.
At this point, I was quite perplexed. Why on earth was Goodyear charging so much for these tires? Next up was braking.
Brake Distance 50-0 mph (Dry)
S.Drive 86.3 ft
F1 GS-D3 80.0 ft
Brake Distance 50-0 mph (Wet)
S.Drive 98.4 ft
F1 GS-D3 98.6 ft
Finally, some more reasonable results…sort of. In the dry, the Goodyears are clearly superior, stopping over 6 feet shorter than the Yokohamas, or 7.8%, which is the largest margin of all the tests. But, the wet track appears once again to nullify the F1’s edge. There, the performance margin between the two tires is a miniscule 0.2%, with the S.Drive actually stopping shorter than the Goodyear!
The final comparison was average lateral G on the skidpad. This is a great test for validating the other tests because it measures a tire’s maximum lateral grip in a fairly closed setting.
Corner G (Dry)
S.Drive 0.96 G
F1 GS-D3 0.94 G
Corner G (Wet)
S.Drive 0.86 G
F1 GS-D3 0.86 G
Looking at the above numbers, we can see why the S.Drive did so well in the other tests – it has more available dry grip than the Goodyear. The wet grip between the two is identical, though given the other results I expected to see a higher number for the S.Drive.
Taking these relatively objective results into account, it is important to compare them to the subjective ratings of the drivers who use them. Thankfully, Tire Rack provides user surveys to this end. I primarily was concerned with three data points – dry traction, wet traction and tread life:
S.Drive (~250,000 miles tested)
Dry Traction 8.8
Wet Traction 8.4
Treadwear 8.6
F1 GS-D3 (~21,000,000 miles tested)
Dry Traction 9.2
Wet Traction 9.1
Treadwear 7.6
According to the collective “butt dynos” of drivers, the Goodyears clearly have an advantage, though the Yokohamas appear to last longer. The problem with these subjective ratings to keep in mind however is that there are so many variables that it is difficult to determine how the numbers were derived. After all, each driver’s perception is different. What feels grippy to one may feel unstable to another. Also, the type of car used can have an enormous impact. After all, the opinions of minivan drivers commuting to and from the office are combined with those driving Ferraris on dedicated race courses. Deriving any meaningful information under such circumstances is difficult.
By contrast, through using the same car on the same track under identical conditions, TireRack’s tests provide what is in my opinion a more solid basis for comparison. Still, there are some caveats even with these tests. First, while the test car is always a BMW 3 series, the model year does change. Here, the Goodyears were tested on a 2006 and the Yokohamas on a 2008. Thus, improvements to the vehicle’s handling characteristics/available power could account for some of the discrepancies.
Second, we don’t know if they use the same driver for every test. Driver skill varies, so lap times even with the same vehicle can differ between drivers. Finally, these tests do not cover the tire over its life cycle. Basically, all they tell you is the performance of the tire in brand new condition. The results could be totally different after 10,000 miles or half a day at the track. Perhaps it is here that the premium-priced products like the F1 GS-D3 really justify their extra cost, though we’ll never know for sure. It would be interesting if TireRack ran a follow-up test at the 10,000 mile mark.
Finally, it is also possible that the Goodyears are simply older technology. They have been around since at least 2003 and the performance discrepancies may simply be the result of 5 extra years of development on the part of Yokohama. Indeed, it is interesting to note that the Goodyear F1 Asymmetric, which is Goodyear’s newest max performance design, beats the S.Drive in every category.
Conclusions
Based on my research and based on my anticipated needs, I will go with the Yokohama S.Drive for my next set of tires. The S.Drive equals or beats the Goodyear in every objective category except dry braking, and does so at nearly a 25% price discount. Incidentally, after having my AVS ES100 (the S.Drive predecessor) for a few months, I can say they are pretty good. I got caught in a monsoon rain storm once and the tires felt confident and in control, even at highway speeds. Dry grip is good and the tires are very linear in response and communicative. My only complaint is road noise, which I think comes mostly from the aggressive uni-directional tread. If the S.Drives are an update to the ES100, it bodes well I think.
